^> S^^. ^<^^ \\% IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MTS) Wa ^ v^. [•^/ C< A ^/, ^ « % 1.0 I.I 11.25 ■^3^ i;ii2^ ■ 50 ""^^ ;;,ii2.2 1^ 12.0 1.4 1.8 1.6 S ^;j o 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation <^ '^ s \ 'f^ 6^ >^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 BHB CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attemptea to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou pellicul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manq:j:e I I Coloured maps/ Cartes g6ographiques en cculeur □ Coloured ink (i.9. other than blut> or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur D u D n Bound with othoi material/ Relc6 avec d'autres documents Tight bir ling may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de ia marge int6rieure Blank laaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restau.ation apparaissent dans le texte, mais, iorsque cela 6ta\t possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6X6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimentaires: L'Institut a microfilm6 le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans ia mdthode normaie de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. I — I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag6es □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou peliicuides "7 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed'' V D Pages ddcoiordes, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Peges ddtach^es Showthroughy Transparence Quality of prir Quaiitd in6gale de I'impression Includes suppjementary mate (meaning "CON- TINUED "). or the symbol V (meaning "END"). whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^- signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Stre reproduit en un seui clichd, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 - .~t -^ 2 3 4 „,■ 5 ,6 Toronto, April 29th, 1898. ,. My Dear Chancellor : i ^^ I regret that my consideration of your letters of 8th and 31,st May, 1897, has been so long delayed. In these letters the original question of an increase of the fees has become complicated with larger questions aft'ecting the State University which in view of their importance demand first consideration. These questions cannot, as you indicate, be pioperly discu.ssed without a knowledge of the history of federation. So imf)ortant have I deemed this aspect of the matter that I have consulted with some of those familiar with the whole histor}' of the federation movement, including Principals Caven and Sheraton, who were members of the Federation Conference of 1884, in order to supplement the information J already possessed as to the more recent phases. I have also had the benefit of President Loudon's knowledge and judgment on the points under discussion, and I am permitted to say that he is in accord with nijr conclusions. Your contention that a maintenance fee for the benefit of the State Univer- sity .should not l>e derived from any other source than University College has led you into statements as to the relation of the Province to secular education wliich are, in my opinion, not only incorrect in themselves but which also vitiate your whole line of argument. The legitimate inference from your letter of 31st May seems to be, in short, that you hold that whilst before federation the duty was laid upon the St: t^e of making provision for all the subjects of higher education, under federation this duty is only binding as regards certain subjects (the so-called " University " subjects) and that this duty is no longer imperative as regards certain other subjects (the so-called " College" subjects). In other words that, in 1887, on the passage of the Federation Act, the State abandoned its p.<3vious policy of providing instruction in all necessary branches of higher learning, and bound itself to furnish adequate instruction in only a part of these. My own view of the position and duty of tho Province as regards its Univer- sity is totally different. From the beginning, the Province was admittedly responsible for the teaching of all the subjects of higher learning. This responsi- bility was unchanged by federation. The separation of the Arts Faculty by federation into two parts has not changed the responsibility of the government for the support of either part. The allotment of the subjects to the one side or the other appears to be in itself unnatural and illogical, and was apparently dete^' mined by mere expediency in an endeavour to meet the exigencies of Victoria College at the time. By the Act subjects are even now transferable from tKe one side to the other (see Act, section 87). Hence, if your theory is right, the Province may to-day be responsible for the support of a subject and to-morrow not so. If you are right, then those who represented the State University in the nego- tiations surely either stulcified themselves by abandoning their life-long policy, or are chargeable with the betrayal of a sacred public trust. The essence of your contention is involved in your assumption that the expense of the University departments (as distinct from those of University College) is a first charge on the endowment. You say in your letter of May 8tb, that the sum of $44<,14G annually is by the Federation Act made free, or virtually is placed upon the original endowments of the University. This is what you term elsewhere in the same letter "the federation free franchise." In j'our letter of May 3Ist, you refer to the services of the teaching staff in University subjects as being free to all the Colleges, and you couple this reference with the enquiry " if free, how were they to be maintained except as a first charge on the theory would mean ? thereby cease to have It any endovvment ?" Your assumption is, I find, supported neither ' y the Act nor by the Agreement come to in LSM^ by the responsible representatives of all Ontario Universities and Colleges, to which you refer as the basis of the Act. As a matter of fact, both the Agreement and the Act contemplate a common and un- divided fund. By section IG of the University Property Act it is provided that all fees and other sources of income shall taken together constitute " the General Income Fluid " the only first charge on which is that of the Bursar's office (section 23). The Agreement above referi'ed to is equally clear. Section 14 of the Agreement reads as follows: — "The University endowment and all additions thereto shall be applied to the maintenance of the Provincial University, the University Faculty, and University (Jollege.'' In this clause of the Agreement, which was assented to by the representatives of Victoria and all other parties concei-ned, there is no word either of a first charge upon the endovvment or of a partition of the endow- ment as between University and College Faculties. This theory of a fir.st charge appears to be an after-thought, and if I am not mistaken is now suggested for the first time. I learn by inquiry that it was never even advanced in the federation negotiations, and I am quite sure that had it been made a condition of federation, the representatives of the University of Toronto »ind University College, as well as those of the Federating Colleges would never have consented to the scheme. Let us consider what the concession of this would mean, first, that University College would ettective claim upon the endowment, for as you are aware a second claim is at best an uncertainty, and may prove perfectly worthless, and secondly, it is quite conceivable that, by the expansion of the University side of the work, the College might eventually receive from the common fund even less than the amount of fees contributed by it thereto. The fiiends of the State University evidently foresaw this danger when, in the federation negotiations, they stipu- lated for a common fund as an essential safeguard. Your implied claim that University College does not enjo}' equal rights with the University as regards the endowment is not only a denial of the legal rights of the College, but appears to be a repudiation of what the representatives of \ictoria freely conceded during the negotiations referred to. Your apparent admission of the rights of University College to a share in the endowment surely amounts to nothing, and the logical inference from your assijmption .seems to be that University College exists only by sufferance, or until the demands of the University subjects .shall have extinguished this semblance of a claim — in short, that the State controls but does not support University College. Not only, as I have .shown, do you deny, in the face of the clear terms of the Agreement and the Act, the right of University College to a share in the endowment on equal terms with the University of Toronto, but also, following out the same line of argument, you as.sert that under the Agreement and the Act "full contract pro- vision has been made for University College," and that its ".staff is quite as expen.sive and more valuable and efficient than the one outlined in the Federation Agreement." I take your ))hrase, "contract provision," to refer to the clause in the Act '(.section 77), which provides seven professors, six lecturers, and five fellows for Uni- versity College. Your assumption evidently is that this is to be regarded as a maximum staff, and as imposing for all time the limits beyond which University College may not expand. You profess to find support for this position in the Federation Agreement, for you say: "The Agreement on which that Act was founded gave to University College a claim to a definite staff of seven professors, one lecturer, six tutors, and six fellows." -4 PPPIWIIP -4 3 I am surprised that you, Sir, who are familiar with the whole histor}' of the federation movement should make a statement so much at variance both witli the letter and the spirit of the Agreement. I find that the Agreement contains no hint of regarding this as a maximum, but on the contrary makes full, careful and adequate provision for the expansion of University College. Section 7 of the Agreement stipulates that University College shall afford to all students who desire to avail themselves thereof the requisite facilities for obtaining adequate instruction in the following subjects, viz., English, Latin, etc. (the College sub- jects). There is no hint in this of any intention to limit the scope of the College teaching. But I find a still more specific stipulation, providing for due expansion, in section 15 of tlie Agreement. After enumerating the start' of University College, the clause continues: "Additional assistance in above subjects to be pro- vided so that no honour class shall exceed twelve, or pa.ss class thirty." But apart from the definiteness of the Agreement on these points, an exami- nation of some of the consequences of your assumption will, I think, show its un- I'easonablene.ss. It can hardly be imagined that it was ever seriously proposed, much less embodied in an Act, to limit the responsibility of the State as to the teaching of sucli subjects as Engli.sh, Latin, etc., and at the same time to provide for the unlimited expansion of the teaching of say Mathematics, Astronomy, Metaphysics, etc. Moreover, the terms of the Federatioii Agreement are clear and positive on this point. It says (section 7a) : "University College shall afford to all students who desire to avail themselves thereof, the requisite facilities for obtaining, adequate instruction in the following subjects in the curriculum of the Provincial University, viz., Latin, Greek, etc., etc." It is undoubtedly the duty of the State to make such provision, and this quite independently of federation, or of the presence of Victoria, or any other institution in federation. On any other under- standing the federation bargain surely is an utterly unintelligble and indefensible But such full and adequate provision becomes an impossibility under your proposed restriction. Restrict the staff as you propose, and, wdth increasing numbers it would be entirely inadequate to overtake the teaching. With your restriction University College would, with such increase, in seli-defence be obliged to turn away stvulents from its doors, and deny to the citizen the right to educate his son at Jie State (Jollege. With your restriction the State would be debarred from increasing the staff of University College, even if the necessary funds were available from increaseil fees. This is such a complete ^eductio ad ahsnrduni that further comment seems to be unnecessary. I might add here tha*^ the Government has not interpreted the Act in this way. For example, a necessity aro.se, I was informed, in Latin, on account of the increased classes, and the Government htis made piovision for an additional lecturer in excess of what you hold to be the limit. I am convinced that your theory is not oidy \intenable in view of the Act, the Agreement, and the conse- quences I have pointed out, but that it represents an attitude which is at variance with that held by the representatives of Victoria (yourself included) when amend- ments to the Act were considered by the Senate in LS93. On that occasion to remove all doubts as to restrictions, by the unanimous vote of the Senate, it was recommended that the following clause should be incorpoiated in the Act. " In University College instruction .shall be given by a professor and such other instructors as the Lieutenant-Governor may from time to time determine in Greek, Latin, etc.," (*-he College subjects). Had this claim of restriction for University College arul free expansion for the University side been bi-ought for- ward during the federation negotiations, you must be aware that it would have effectually and definitely endjed the federation movement. Referring to the University Htaff, you say in your letter of 31st May, " let us look ut tlie other side of the Federation Act and Agreement. By its terms we were to have a staff of nineteen professors with a corresponding number of other instructors," and further on you say that this staff " has never been completely iilled up " It is true that by the Act a teaching stafT is called for in some eighteen or pos- sibly nineteen branches of learning, though nowhere is it prescribed as you say that there shall be nineteen teachers with the academic rank of |)rofessor. " Profes- sors " as such are not mentioned and the very wording makes it clear to my mind that the object of the clause was to leave the State free to make such arrange- ments as would be most feasible, having regard to the essential thing, viz., the establishing of teaching facilities in these subjects. The ([uestion of the rank of the teacher may seem a minor one but I am forced to notice it because your argument proceeds upon the assumption that a professor in each case is called for. Now I find that provision has already been made and the Act and Agree- ment complied with in every subject except Engineering, for which ample pro- vision has been made in the School of Practical Science at the expense of the Piovince. What is still more important is the fact that not only has the Act been complied with, but that in some departments, e.g., Biology, Chemistry, Physics, the teaching staff is, I venture to say, far in excess of what was contem- plated at the time of the fedeiation negotiations, and is besides actually in excess of the provision made for any University College subject. In view of these facts, your assertion that the " shortcomings have all fallen to the University side " is, in my opinion, unwarranted, so far as the staff" is concerned. When I turn to the matter of buildings and equipment, I find a still greater discrepancy between your assertion and the facts of the case. In your letter of 31st May, you say that in addition to the staff (the point I have just dealt with), "buildings and other ecjuipments tf) be furnished which have only been partially provided." When we consider what has been done for the University depart- ments since 1887, this charge is'little short of astounding. If you will turn to the Agreement to which you have referred you will find in section 21 a descrip- tion of the buildings contemplated which are as follows: — "A building suitable for a University Examination Hall, Senate rooms, Registrar's and other offices shall be erected * * ; additions to be made to the School of Science sufficient to afford proper accommodation for students in mineralogy, botany, and other sub- jects, and for the accommodation of the Museum, which should be removed from its present quarters in order to be more serviceable for science students." What might be termed the minor requirements of this progi'amme — Examination Hall, Senate Rooms, Registrar's and other offices — have been satis- factorily provitled in the main building. As to the Science departments, the Agreement contemplated by a scheme of additions to the building their continu- ance in the School of Practical Science, where they then were. True, this pro- gramme has not been literally carried out, and fortunately so. Instead of a flat in the School of Science, Biology has been provided with a magnificent separate building. In like manner Chemistry, which was not even mentioned in the Agreement clause referi-ed to, has been provided with a building unsurpassed on this continent in its accommodation and equipment. Although the department of Geology has not yet been provided for on the same liberal scale, yet, as you will admit, the arrangements made for the department by Vice-Chancellor Mulock, in the erection of the west wing of the Biological Building, were not only amply sufficient to meet the requirements of the Act and Agreement, but were deemed satisfactory to the Senate, and, if I am not mistaken, to yourself personally, at the time. I myself think that better provision for Mineralogy and Geology should be made in the near future, and this on account of the growing importance 1 M 4v ■t i m I of these sciences in themselves, and not on account of any unfiiUiHed ii^reenient with reganl to them. In short, whon we contrast the provision whicli has been made f r University departnunits in ltuildin;,'s and ecjiiipnient, witli the very modest protjranimo which was satisfactory to all concerned when originally drawn up, it must bi-, admitted that no ground for complaint exists, and that thu Agree- ment has been interpreted in a spirit of liberality which was not dreamt of at the time. A contirmation of this I sec further in the ({ymnasium Building, ])rovided at a cost of over S30,()0(), and in the Library Building at a cost of upwards of $100,000, although neither was even mentioned in the Agreement. More than contract provision has already been made, as I have shown for the University depfirtments, and now new expansion must be provided for. The inevitable consecjuence of your theory of a first claim on the endowment for University purposes and of a refusal to increase any revenue fees but those of University College is to throw upon Utdversity College the whole burden of expense for future expansion. This is the position you take, and you say thnt it is justified by'tho Agreement and the Act. You appear to ignore the fact, which must be well-known to you, that the feileration negotiations looked to no such source for future expansion. University College was guaranteed a.s a State Col- lege fi)r all time to come, and it was supposed that tlie adilitional funds which it was anticipated would be required for carrying out the scheme would be furni.shed by the Government. The question of further State aid for the University was under discussion just before the federation negotiations, having been advocated by Vice-Chancellor Mulock in his Convocation aildress of IHHS. The estimate of increased income necessary for the carrying out of federation made in 1S84 as I understand by Professor Loudon, and ])ublicly announced, was S+O.OOO a j'ear. You yourself subse(juently stated $1.50,000 as your estimate of the annual income which would be immediately available under federation, making it clear that you also anticipated a considerable addition to the resources of the University. The Senate also in accepting the scheme coupled with their acceptance the assertion of the necessity of increased Government aid, and it was generally understood that additional funds would be provided by Govei'ument from some source. These expectations have not been realized, and, as you know, that is the reason why fees have already been increased more than once, and not at all because any such increase of fees was projected in the Fxleration Act. Merely nominal fees in University College were thought of You hold the contrary, but in point of fact how are you more justified in saying that it was intended that University College should be supported wholly by its fees than that the University of Toronto should be wholly su])ported by its fees ? The clause of the Act referring to this point is exactly parallel for both institutions, as you will see by referring to sections oS, 2 and 7H. The complete parallelism of Universit}' College and Victoria College on which you insist haVno foundation as far as the Act is concerned (see sections 38, 2, 3, 4), and is not supported by anything in the Agreement. The parallelism con- templated by the Act refers only to teaching and attendance on lectures, and not at all to finances. The admission of this fictitious parallelism would bring us again face to face with the question I have already raised, viz., whether by feder- ation the State abandoned its duty to provide for the adequate teaching of all subjects, College as well as University. Let us now turn to another phase of the question, viz., to the direct contribu- tion which as you allege is maile to the University by Victoria College. In your last letter you say: " And while we would have saved ourselves $20,000 a year, besides large outlay for buildings by putting our Arts students into University College as others do, this would have involved additional expense there of at least $10,000 a year, i.e., if they were to get anything like proper attention. Our College is a direct contribution to the resources of the University to at least that extent. ' ; ,y^ 6 Tins assertion I have referred to President Loudon, who has favoured ine with till) r()llowin«j answer : — " A partial experiuient bearing on this (juostion was made in the session of 189G-97 when a number of the classes in French in Victoria College were incor- porated with those in Uiiivori^ity College in coMsequenee of the illne-.s of Professor retch. The joint classes were handled without inconvenience \>y the start' oi University College consisting of Professor Scjuair, Mr, Camerot», and M. de Champ. Professor Squair informs me now that, assuming the nuiid)i'rs of students to bo the san)o as last you-, the classes could be thus combined permanently on securing M. de Champ's services for a few hours extra per week at an additional cost of say $li")0 per aimum, and that the (itficiency of the instruction would be fully up to the presi^nt standard. From Professoi- vanderSmissen I learn that a similar arrantrement vvould l)e feasible in Cerman, and from Professor Alexander that the classes in English could be condjined at a slight additional expense (say $150) for the woik of reading and correcting essays. In the departments of (Jreek, Hel)rew, Ancient History, and Ethics, the professors state that tne present classes, in both University College and Victoria College could be handled together without any extra cost. The ordy department in which an ady imposing; 1?4 on all Arts students as an increase! to tho Examination fee. It is immaterial from my point of view wliethor it in allotted to oxaminatiotiH or lihrary or hotii. Tlus alternative whicli you pro{)os(! is an increase of Colle^'e foes, hut you apparently f )r;^et that this would mean an rdditional increase per student not of '^i l)Ut of d'H, or a contrihution on the part of University Colle«,'e students of 8^50 to the common fund wliilst Victoria College students would contrihuto no more than formerly. .Nor must it In; f()r;,'otten itt this connection that tho instruc- tion of students in several honor departments is in the hi;j;her years entirely pro- vided by the University Faculty. The foes of University (Jollefj;e students in such departments <^o into the common fund, and thus Indirectly the instructioli is paid for. But Victoria Colle<;e enjoys in similar eases the j)eciiliai' pri vile<,'e of receiving feo.s for instruction althoui^h It actually gives none, u privilejife also pi'rmitted at the heginnini^ to Kno.\, Wycliffe and St. Michael's, hut not taken advantage of, and subsecpjently withdrawn by an amendment of the Act. In view of all tho circumstances — tlie sacrifices of endowment which have been made to carry out the Federation Agreement, tlie resulting financial straits, our recent uruhMstandin;.^ with the Government, the benefits which Victoria enjoys under federation, the smalluess of tho sum now contributed by Victoria students, and tho insignificance of tho proposed increa.se — I hope you will rocognizo tho })ropriety of meeting u,s in the liberal spirit shown at tho beginning of our negotiations. I need scarcely remind you that should the Senate fail to carry this statute from which wo expect an increase of about $4,0(>0, and shotdd University College then decline to impose a further addition of $.S ])or student to its fees, there is no hope of meeting the present deficit much less of providing for future expansion I am, my dear Chancellor, . ; Yours faithful!'-, '■ ' • B.E.WALKER. Chancellor Burwash, Victoria University, • . ; Toronto.